Page 3 of 31 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 464

Thread: Christians are anti-science.

  1. #31 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,967
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,173 Times in 10,391 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    VERY true... Especially when it comes to the "global warming" buzzword...

    Those scientists deny multiple scientific laws, such as the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan-boltzmann law.
    You're, of course, referring to a law that "applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation."

    I see creationists refer to laws of thermodynamic frequently. Their clams are debunked every time.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to domer76 For This Post:

    mak2 (10-04-2018)

  3. #32 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,835
    Thanks
    6,475
    Thanked 3,778 Times in 3,065 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    You're, of course, referring to a law that "applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation."
    Nope. My current understanding is that it applies to all bodies.

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    I see creationists refer to laws of thermodynamic frequently. Their clams are debunked every time.
    Bulverism fallacy.

  4. #33 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,967
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,173 Times in 10,391 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Nope. My current understanding is that it applies to all bodies.


    Bulverism fallacy.
    It doesn't. Blackbodies. Earth is not one.

    I'll repeat. Creationists frequently refer to the laws of thermodynamics in attempts to prove their religious case. Pseudo-science. Those claims are debunked every time.

    You're the one who claims dictionaries don't contain definitions, aren't you?

  5. #34 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,835
    Thanks
    6,475
    Thanked 3,778 Times in 3,065 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    It doesn't. Blackbodies. Earth is not one.

    I'll repeat. Creationists frequently refer to the laws of thermodynamics in attempts to prove their religious case. Pseudo-science. Those claims are debunked every time.

    You're the one who claims dictionaries don't contain definitions, aren't you?
    I never said that they don't contain definitions... I said that they don't define words. Address my actual argument next time...

  6. #35 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,967
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,173 Times in 10,391 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    I never said that they don't contain definitions... I said that they don't define words. Address my actual argument next time...
    Gonna split some hairs there, aren’t you, Jethro? They don’t define words, but they provide definitions.

    Earth is not a blackbody, is it, Rufus?

  7. #36 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,835
    Thanks
    6,475
    Thanked 3,778 Times in 3,065 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    Gonna split some hairs there, aren’t you, Jethro? They don’t define words, but they provide definitions.

    Earth is not a blackbody, is it, Rufus?
    You do know that there is a difference between offering definitions and being the source of definitions, right?

  8. #37 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    48,967
    Thanks
    12,111
    Thanked 14,173 Times in 10,391 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 4,876 Times in 4,194 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    You do know that there is a difference between offering definitions and being the source of definitions, right?
    Source? What is that? Your Creationist god?

    Words evolve, pally boy. From various languages, various times or are even coined. Old meanings disappear, new meanings appear. Spellings, as well. Your little “source” mantra is manure.

  9. #38 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    57,779
    Thanks
    35,457
    Thanked 50,279 Times in 27,090 Posts
    Groans
    22
    Groaned 2,975 Times in 2,692 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Not just Christians who are anti science, but religions. The Arab nations were the most advanced a couple thousand years ago in science and math. That is why you use Arabic numerals. The Europeans adopted what they learned from them. Then Islam came along, dragging them backwards.
    Christianity was a believer in burning down libraries and fighting scientific knowledge. The Dark Ages are a reminder oif what they did and are still doing when we let them get away with it. Remember the Inquisition? Those powers are stll alive and well in the church.
    The Arabs. http://www.muslimheritage.com/articl...fic-revolution
    The premise that there is an inherent, long-standing, and irreconcilable conflict between science and religion is an artificial human construct of the 19th century.

    The modern American presumption of relentless "conflict" between science and religion mainly originates from the Protestant Reformation, with it's emphasis on personal salvation and disregard for natural philosophy. The rise of American Protestant fundamentalism did not help matters, since that denomination of Christianity stresses biblical literalism and seems to gravitate to ignorance.

    It is worth remembering that Arab advances in mathematics, astronomy, philosophy came as a result of the Golden Age of Islam. It is not attributable to Arab pagans. Though admittedly, Islamic scientific accomplishments declined after the Golden Age for reasons I am still not 100 percent sure about .

    Christianity, natural philosophy, and science all synergistically contributed to our unique western emphasis on reason, logic, mathematics, scholarly skepticism.

    That intellectual approach was a unique development of western civilization - and the Christianity of late antiquity and the middle ages played a fundamental role in laying the groundwork for the use of reason and scholarly inquiry in the west. Western science grew out of the Neoplatonism and Aristotelian logic of the Jesuit and Dominican orders, the scholarly theologies of Church fathers, and the Catholic universities of the middle ages.

    Using reason and logic to study the natural world has historically been considered a form of religious devotion, from the Greeks to Isaac Newton. I always like to make the point that a seminal figure in the science of evolution, and widely considered to be the father of genetics, was the Catholic Augustinian monk Gregor Mendel.

    In my opinion, bottom line is this:
    The relationship between science and religion through history is complex, and for sure there were skirmishes. But western civilization and western science owes a deep and profound debt to western Christianity for blazing the trail in resurrecting Greek thought, elevating Platonic reason and Aristotelian logic to the pinnacle of western intellectual tradition, and establishing the principle of higher education by the development of universities. I doubt we would recognize western civilization and western science without its debt to the Christian theologians and scholars of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages

  10. #39 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    26,116
    Thanks
    694
    Thanked 5,043 Times in 3,907 Posts
    Groans
    85
    Groaned 1,697 Times in 1,555 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grugore View Post
    You see this a lot on the forums. Some ignorant, hateful atheist claiming that Christians don't believe in science or are scientifically illiterate.
    Guess again.
    In the last 100 years

    Nobel prizes:

    Chemistry: 72.5 percent were awarded to Christians
    Physics: 62 percent were awarded to Christians.
    Medicine/Physiology: 54 percent were awarded to Christians.

    A very small percentage were awarded to non-Theists.

    Any questions?
    Very few Christians are anti-science in every aspect of their lives, but religious people are more likely to deny certain scientific facts that call religion into question. Atheists don't because they're not emotionally invested in maintaining religious ideas.

  11. #40 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,835
    Thanks
    6,475
    Thanked 3,778 Times in 3,065 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jade Dragon View Post
    That's creationists that seem to be anti-science, not Christians as a whole.
    Creationism is not anti-science.

  12. #41 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,835
    Thanks
    6,475
    Thanked 3,778 Times in 3,065 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
    its republicans who claim Christianity



    my christian friends are fine with science
    Bigotry. Plenty of Democrats claim Christianity as well.

  13. #42 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,835
    Thanks
    6,475
    Thanked 3,778 Times in 3,065 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mak2 View Post
    I am a Christian and I believe God gave us science to understand our world. American far right wing conservobots are the problem.
    What's "the problem"?

  14. #43 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    10,835
    Thanks
    6,475
    Thanked 3,778 Times in 3,065 Posts
    Groans
    45
    Groaned 124 Times in 122 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by StoneByStone View Post
    Very few Christians are anti-science in every aspect of their lives, but religious people are more likely to deny certain scientific facts that call religion into question. Atheists don't because they're not emotionally invested in maintaining religious ideas.
    Most self-proclaimed "Atheists" ARE religious... They believe that there are no god/s, a theistic belief in and of itself.

  15. #44 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,697 Times in 2,029 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    It doesn't. Blackbodies. Earth is not one.
    This is the cry of the scientifically illiterate warmizombie, i.e. "physics doesn't apply to earth."

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    I'll repeat. Creationists frequently refer to the laws of thermodynamics in attempts to prove their religious case.
    I'll repeat, warmizombies frequently skirt the laws of thermodynamics in attempts to rationalize their Global Warming faith.

    Pseudo-science. Those claims are debunked every time.

    Quote Originally Posted by domer76 View Post
    You're the one who claims dictionaries don't contain definitions, aren't you?
    I'm the one that claims that no dictionary owns the English language. Which dictionary do you claim owns English?
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  16. #45 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,467
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,697 Times in 2,029 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gfm7175 View Post
    Creationism is not anti-science.
    Correct. I will add, however, the caveot that certain young-earth Creationism presents certain challenges to scientific consistency, e.g. How are we able to see stars that are millions of light years away if the light hasn't had millions of years to travel?

    Otherwise Creationism is entirely consistent with the laws of physics.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    gfm7175 (09-09-2020)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2013, 01:19 PM
  2. Anti-Science Republicans
    By Timshel in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 01-17-2013, 08:02 AM
  3. Replies: 99
    Last Post: 10-03-2012, 07:55 PM
  4. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-08-2012, 05:36 AM
  5. Anti Science?
    By Cancel 2016.2 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 01-18-2012, 08:39 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •